Originally Posted by paulry

How strange, I began to compose a similar post earlier, and then abandoned it because I thought what's the point, most people can see the truth just the same as I can - some are just hard-wired to want to flood the western world with asylum seekers and economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers regardless of the consequences.

Originally Posted by Beoz

Wol and yourself will never get an answer because the lefty labour pwople on this thread have no interest in working through a solution. All they are interested in is attacking the Liberal government.

Its like the moron Bill Shorten. All he does is attack the Libs with criticisms. He comes up with zero ideas of his own.

If this country wants a viable alternative, there you have it my friends. Bill Shorten and Christine Milne. God help Australia.

Originally Posted by JoeBloggs80

I'll give it a go then



Not unlimited, no. I think they have an obligation to take as many as they can



Pff, no idea. As many valid claims as can be accommodated. Dont have the research. Lets call it 30k a year.

They give out 9,000 working holiday visa a year just so some kids can come out here on the piss. Those would be better off going to genuine asylum seekers for a start. Plus I know people who have managed to get visas here as a result of being a bloody recruitment consultant. Even the most right wing of you must admit asylum seekers are more worthy than them.




If you genuinely think 60 million people are about to turn up on a boat then you are quite obviously bonkers.

I'm not so convinced the limits would be reached. Rather than pluck fear mongering figures out of the air - I will refer you to some facts as to how many people actually arrive:

Refugee Council of Australia

Note how many people actually have their claim turned down and are thus returned. Also note how significantly more people who arrive by boat have a valid claim over those who arrive by air.

Given the historical trends, even allowing for the recent spike, the numbers really are not that significant. Its a big old place we got here.



There is obviously no easy answer. What is clear is that the current policy is not only deeply inhumane but also costing a ludicrous amount of money and is probably untenable long term so alternatives need to be found.

I don't object to there being a limit of course, there has to be one. There shouldn't be a open arms to all and sundry. But there are people there who need help and we can give it. The most desperate come by boat, I'm sure they don't do that by choice.



Maybe not on your part but don't get it twisted it certainly DOES have a lot to do with "racism, compassion, hatred, etc". and that's exactly what the Liberals play on.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

Fair play Joe. But I think there is signs of racism on this thread from some of those in favour of the current policy. It's a bit ironic to see it here on britishexpats.com considering how easy it was for us to get here.

A question for Wol, can we and should we do more?

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

Fair play Joe. But I think there is signs of racism on this thread from some of those in favour of the current policy. It's a bit ironic to see it here on britishexpats.com considering how easy it was for us to get here.

A question for Wol, can we and should we do more?

Originally Posted by Beoz

It's $15000 to enlist the services of a people smuggler. Not easy to come across that kind of cash if you are under-privileged.

Originally Posted by Wol

Me: >>You really don't understand what I'm getting at, do you?<<

knockoff nige >>Do you?<<

I keep coming back to the question I asked IIRC at the end of April, and all I get is refusal to give a straight answer (which is, to be honest, just what I was expecting.)

Let me put it in another way, in the form of sequential questions:

(1) Do you think any country (including Australia) has the capacity, let alone the obligation, to accept an unlimited number of asylum claimants? (Y/N) If Yes, go to the end.

(2) If the answer to 1 is No, then what do you think is a reasonable number to accept? (20,000? 00,000? 1m?, 10m? - or choose another number)

(3) Grabbing just a few countries out of thin air which might reasonably be said to have a human rights problem, with their approximate populations:
Nigeria 174m
Libya 6m
Egypt 82m
Syria 22m
Iraq 34m
Iran 77m
Pakistan 183m
Afghanistan 31m
Not even counting such places as China, Burma, Sudan etc, the total of those I've mentioned is 609m.
Say 10% of those claim asylum in other countries, that's 60 million people.

(4) If your answer to 2 is fewer than that 60m (which in any case is three times Australia's present population), and given the reasonable assumption that a very large proportion of those involved would prefer to settle in a first world country which allows them easy entry, just what do you think the government should do when your limit is reached? Because it *would* be reached, at some point. And the more that had already been allowed in, the larger the smuggling industry would have become.

So, once again: do you have any answer to the original, three month old, question? Because the situation now is actually exactly the same as what I have stated above - only the numbers are different.

This has nothing to do with racism, compassion, hatred etc etc: it's purely a matter of what response any government can have to what is rapidly becoming a rock/hard place dilemma.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

No it's not. Not a fixed rate. Just because through out history some have paid to exit unsafe situations it doesn't make them any less entitled to be in need of asylum.
It is a point a morally bankrupt uses to justify likely illegal actions. A refugee does not have to be under privileged. Indeed more likely to be economic enhancers if poor.

Originally Posted by Amazulu

I enjoyed watching Scott Morrison destroy an Australia-hating, socialist presenter on the ABC this morning

Morrison is a bit of an arrogant prick, but on this issue he is dead right

Great stuff

Originally Posted by Beoz

But you were the one who said a white South African was probably not entitled to asylum seeking because they were more privileged.

Originally Posted by balkanghost

There is a very simple solution, if you don't like Australia 'go back to where you came from'.......

If Australia applied the implied restrictions demanded, some of our greatest Australians would never have been admitted to Australia, e.g. Sir John Monash. Anyone recognise him and understand why he is important?

Further, you cam emigrate onto the EU where there are formally 2.2. million 'UK economic and other refugees' living in the EU, while this figure could be increased by 50% to include those doing it dodgy i.e. not registered, not paying taxes or social security etc..

Originally Posted by the troubadour

And? The white tribe remain pretty much in tact there. Cape Town had a white mayor and was politically entrenched in the West Cape when I was there not long back. Hardly in need of refuge.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

Who are you referring to in going back? An even simpler move would be people of good standing to stay and challenge the right wing induced intolerance being paraded with increased zest in this country.